I refer to your report on the handling of my
complaints by Strathclyde Police dated August 2010 and your letter dated 8
September 2010.

In this letter I address the section in your
report reviewing how Strathclyde Police responded in respect of the third head
of complaint that the PCCS had identified for consideration, which was:

‘that Strathclyde Police colluded with the
applicant’s former employer by remaining silent regarding false public
statements on the outcome of the police investigation’

Your report on this head of complaint includes
the following statements:

‘Strathclyde Police did not respond to this
issue.............. there is no general duty upon police officers to comment or
act on the contents of newspaper reports. Accordingly, no further action is
required of Strathclyde Police in relation to this issue.’

This is simply an insult to the general
public and every party concerned about integrity in public finances.

Strathclyde Police clearly have nothing but
disdain for the general public and organisations concerned about allegations of
financial irregularities in respect of the handling of taxpayers’ money and you
have now supported Strathclyde Police in their devious, dishonest and overtly corrupt
approach.

How can anyone ever trust any press reports
on the outcomes of police investigations in the light of this manifestly
devious police behaviour, now encouraged by your own stated view on the matter?

So the Police Complaints Commissioner for
Scotland regards such blatantly dishonest and devious conduct by Strathclyde
Police, which was rather obviously in collusion with the organisation that had
been under investigation, as a matter of little or no consequence? This is no
less than a scandal and a disgrace.

A reasonable suspicion could arise in the
mind of an independent observer that Scottish Enterprise had been assured in
advance that Strathclyde Police would remain silent as Scottish Enterprise
duped everyone by blatantly lying about the outcome of the police investigation
in this case as detailed below.

How do we know that there were no inducements
offered and accepted in respect of this cosy arrangement?

This is a matter of very grave concern. A serious
conflict of interest arises where the police can choose not to counter lies promulgated
by suspects on the outcome of police inquiries. Acquiescence by the police is
clearly worth paying for. And the Police Complaints Commissioner for Scotland
isn’t going to care, is he?

In October 1993 the
Herald and several other newspapers published articles saying that
investigations had found that there was ‘no substance to the allegations’.

The Herald article
quoted director Andrew Downie saying:

‘As an organisation dealing with public money,
Enterprise Ayrshire has developed stringent financial control mechanisms. These
controls are regularly vetted by our own board, through its audit committee, by
Scottish Enterprise, and by our external auditors Ernst & Young.
Allegations of this nature can damage the probity which Enterprise Ayrshire insists
on in all aspects of its operations and we are delighted that, after a thorough
investigation, Strathclyde police have confirmed that there is no substance to
the allegations.’

But on the contrary the police report,
although seriously defective as detailed in my previous communications, had at
least concluded correctly:

‘The receipt of ERDF money was brought into
the July financial ledger on 18 August. The money was received in June 1993 and
should therefore have been accounted for in this month.’

In the Scotsman the following appeared:

‘Some of their criticisms were answered by
the Scottish Enterprise chairman, Donald Mackay, at a briefing after a board
meeting yesterday. Conceding that the internal controls needed to be examined
and tightened where appropriate, he added that the promotion, marketing and
consultancy expenditure would also be reviewed. But he pointed out that an
inquiry into the alleged fraud at Enterprise Ayrshire, involving £187,000 of
European regional development funding, had resulted in the LEC being given ‘’a
clean bill of health’’. The allegations centred on a claim that the money was
not entered in the company’s computerised accounts until two months after it was
received, during which time it was placed in a high interest account. In
explanation, Prof Mackay said that the additional funding attracted by the
grant had to be spent before the grant itself could be used. He said that it
was normal practice to place the money on deposit until it was drawn down. ‘’We
knew about the transaction,’’ he added.’

These comments were of course dishonest,
indeed utter nonsense, and did not explain at all why this significant amount
of taxpayers’ money had been secretly misappropriated.

In the meantime, two MPs and my professional
body wrote to government ministers on my behalf, including the Secretary of
State for Scotland.

The Chartered Institute of Management
Accountants (CIMA) were sufficiently concerned that there had been an injustice
in this case that they took the highly unusual step of intervening on my
behalf.

CIMA wrote to the Scottish Minister for
Industry and Local Government that I had acted entirely correctly and
completely in accordance with accounting ethical guidelines, in the following
terms:

‘Mr Cairns is a qualified management
accountant and a member of this Institute, and we thought it might be helpful
if the Institute clearly set out its position in this matter to you in the
event of the case being re-opened.’

‘The Institute believes that the action taken
by Mr Cairns in reporting to his superiors the apparent discrepancy of £187,069
in the main account of Ayrshire Enterprise was entirely correct, and that in
doing so he was acting completely in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines of
this Institute.’

The MPs, Lord Hogg and the Speaker of the
House of Commons Michael Martin, requested a full investigation.

Lord Hogg MP confirmed in a letter to me:

‘Thank you for your letters of 19 August and
21 August concerning Enterprise Ayrshire. I have now written to the Secretary
of State for Scotland asking that the matters you raise be fully investigated
and shall write to you again when I have something to report.’

His letter to the Secretary of State stated:

‘My constituent Eddie Cairns ......... has
written two letters to me concerning matters he raised with Enterprise Ayrshire
while he was in their employment.’

‘I am satisfied that these matters warrant
investigation by your Department and I should be grateful if this could be
undertaken as soon as possible.’

‘I look forward to your reply in due course.’

About a year later, after I had moved to a
different constituency, my new MP Michael Martin’s letter to the Secretary of
State for Scotland stated:

‘Enclosed is a letter from my constituent Mr
Eddie Cairns regarding his dismissal from Enterprise Ayrshire.’

‘It
would appear to me that Mr Cairns was punished for acting in a very honest and
professional manner’.

‘I am
at a loss to understand why the sum of £187,069 was omitted from the accounts
of this public body for so long’

‘I would be obliged if this matter could be
fully investigated’.

All these interested parties were misled on
the outcome of the police investigation. Simply put, Strathclyde Police had
found that all my allegations were true but allowed Scottish Enterprise to lie
to everyone about it.

Now you have effectively added your own
support to this scandalous state of affairs.

This conduct seriously undermines the
following introductory statements in your report:

’The Commissioner is independent of the
police service and performs his functions in a fair and impartial manner.’

‘Among the factors which the Commissioner
takes into account are the following:’

·‘whether
in dealing with the complaint the policing body has adhered to all relevant
policies, procedures and legal provisions;’

Contrary to these undertakings, your report
appears to be biased and fundamentally unlawful. Such overt dishonesty and
collusion in the context of a criminal investigation is rather more serious
than you seem to think.

The conduct of Strathclyde Police officers in
this case appears to be indicative of a conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice.

Very significantly, disclosures obtained from
Audit Scotland in May 2009 revealed that responses from Scottish Enterprise and
Scottish Office Ministers in this case were ‘disingenuous’.

Audit Scotland’s assessment was far from
categorising any claim from me as vexatious. Instead such a claim was clearly
regarded as a realistic possibility as disclosed in the following extracts:

‘Mr Cairns is correct
in his view that the ERDF monies should have been included in the EA June
Management Accounts and it looks as though they might have been omitted from
the July accounts but for his actions ............. Speculation on why the
monies were not disclosed in the management accounts is academic at this stage
but it does seem odd that he was allegedly instructed to exclude them from the
July accounts.’

‘Responses to Mr
Cairns (sic) complaints from Scottish
Enterprise and the Scottish Office Ministers dismiss the omission of the
receipts as a technical accounting matter. That is disingenuous. Mr Cairns (sic) issue is about the deliberate
misstatement of management accounts; there are governance issues
here................ The Board of EA were receiving these management accounts
as was Scottish Enterprise, the principal funders. I see no reason why the ERDF
monies should not have been shown in the first management accounts after their
receipt. Scottish Enterprise should have been concerned that Mr Cairns was
allegedly instructed to exclude them.............. If Mr Cairns is seeking recompense for his dismissal we should not get
drawn in.’(emphasis mine)

Importantly, since the police report actually
appears to have been prepared by Ms Mandy Dickson of Scottish Enterprise and to
have been plainly rigged there are substantive grounds for objecting to your
complacency and ineffectiveness in this case.

The so-called police report contained none of
the evidence I had submitted to Strathclyde Police at the time nor any witness
statements from me or indeed from anyone else involved.

Do you have any interest whatsoever in
upholding ethical standards and integrity in public finances?

Do you have any respect at all for the general
public?

In the world that you inhabit apparently those
who have been investigated by the police for alleged criminality are free to issue
formal statements to the press, as Scottish Enterprise did in this case,
stating that the police had found the allegations to be false when in fact the
police had found the allegations to be true.

How is that in the public interest or in the
interests of justice?

In this case not only the general public but
also the Secretary of State for Scotland, two MPs who acted on my behalf, my
professional body the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, Audit
Scotland and any other interested parties were fed a pack of lies by Scottish
Enterprise while the police benignly looked the other way and said absolutely
nothing.

Your angle that the police have no duty to
comment on press reports is completely unacceptable and indeed it reveals you
to be a fundamentally dishonest person unfit for any position requiring a
modicum of integrity.

In view of the very serious nature of the
above and its relevance to wider issues in this case I have copied this letter
to Strathclyde Police, to Scottish Enterprise, to the Scottish Government’s Ms
Stella Manzie, Director General Justice and Communities, to Audit Scotland, to
Mr Bob Doris MSP and to the Crown Office.

This is clearly a matter of public interest
that would tend to undermine the public’s confidence in the administration of
justice, justice not having been seen to be done.

This letter has
therefore been put into the public domain as is entirely appropriate in these
circumstances.

About Me

SCOTTISH ENTERPRISE
This story highlights the dangers involved in being a whistleblower. It relates how trying to resist instructions to falsify accounts in any establishment organisation, in this case Scottish Enterprise, can swiftly lead to unemployment, destruction of your professional reputation, homelessness and bankruptcy. In the longer term it can result in grinding poverty, social isolation, mental health problems, being falsely classified by the government as a persistent correspondent and a vexatious litigant. In my case I attained the dubious honour of being listed on the Court of Session website as the number one vexatious litigant in Scotland for 11 years so far (as at September 2016).
In reality however none of my cases was vexatious.